3 ms·
1. It is, and has been for as long as computers have been available. My mum used an arts grant to buy a computer in like, 93', and taught herself programming. T
by pasabagi 5y ago
1. It is, and has been for as long as computers have been available. My mum used an arts grant to buy a computer in like, 93', and taught herself programming. That's a pretty normal story for that generation. Earlier, many artists would use institutional access to computers (e.g Manfred Mohr).
2. One can create almost anything with almost anything. The question is, what are the relevant skills, and why is the medium compelling?
Programming is not the norm amongst artists these days, but it's also not unusual to meet somebody who programs, and most people use computers at some point in their process.
- Grustaf 5y agoUnless your mother got the computer in order to code json parsers or similar, how is this related to the questions? Nobody doubts that computers can be used to make art, the question was if programming was an art.
- pasabagi 5y agoI don't think you're reading the question correctly: an 'art' can be any kind of creative activity, so obviously, programming is an art independently of whether anybody ever makes 'art' with it.
- Grustaf 5y agoThe question is not about "art" as in τέχνη, then you might consider it an art. The question was about "the arts", and that means something else, it's the same "art" as in "artistic". Painting, writing etc.
- pasabagi 5y agoI guess 'art' and 'techne' have had a great deal of semantic drift in the last few centuries. I think many contemporary artists live in a post-Beuys world where art is what artists do, and everybody is an artist. In this setup, there is basically no distinction. Painters often have a different opinion.
- Grustaf 5y agoYes but this question was specifically about “the arts”, which is pretty unambiguous.